Executive Director of Greenpeace to CEO of Facebook: Unfriend Coal!

We've been talking a lot about Facebook lately. We were alarmed in January by the company's announcement that it would build a coal-powered data center in Prineville, Oregon. So we started a little group to ask the company not to use dirty energy to power our profiles. That group grew and grew as Facebook users across the globe joined up to tell Facebook to get off of coal. And as of this week, the group is half-a-million strong.

Then, we were further dismayed by Facebook's second announcement about its data center: it plans to double its size! That means twice the energy use, twice the coal, and twice the global warming pollution. Why isn't Facebook listening to its users?

Those 500,000 Facebook users have gotten someone's attention, though. Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, has heard our message and is taking up the charge. In a letter sent today, Kumi asks Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, to take responsibility for his company's growing energy footprint and show some climate leadership.

Climate leadership is the focus of the Cool IT Challenge, which encourages IT companies to apply their technological know-how and innovative spriit to solving the climate crisis. The campaign urges IT companies to put forth solutions, mitigate their own carbon footprint, and advocate for significant policy changes in the mutual interest of business and the climate.

Here is the complete text of Kumi's letter to Mr. Zuckerberg:

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

Climate scientists around the world tell us that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015 in order to stay within a critical temperature threshold to have a chance of avoiding runaway global warming. To do this, we must break our addiction to oil, coal, and other dirty fossil fuels and transition away from them as rapidly as possible. Given the tremendous growth of IT cloud computing companies like Facebook expected in this same period, your company has an increasingly essential role to play in helping to drive the deployment of renewable energy sources needed to avert the most devastating possible effects of our changing climate.

Facebook, which now connects over 500 million people, has a responsibility to exhibit good corporate citizenship toward the growing public it serves. No global business leader, particularly not one who reaches so many people daily, could deny that in this time it is both a threat to a company’s reputation and financial health risk to ignore their company’s environmental impacts.

Facebook appears to be on a path that will make breaking our addiction to dirty coal-fired electricity even more difficult. As you are aware, following Facebook’s announcement to build a new data center in Prineville, OR, Greenpeace and over half a million Facebook users have expressed significant concerns with your decision to power this data center with dirty coal-fired electricity from PacificCorp, which runs an electricity mix that is disproportionately powered by coal, the largest source of global warming pollution.

Despite this controversy, Facebook’s recent announcement that it will more than double the size of the Prineville facility, and thus double the demand for dirty coal energy in Oregon, is a disturbing sign that Facebook remains on the wrong path.

Other cloud-based companies face similar choices and challenges as you do in building data centers, yet many are making smarter and cleaner investments. Google, for instance, entered into a long-term agreement with a large wind power producer earlier this month. It has demonstrated that it is not only possible to prioritize the purchase of clean energy, but prudent as well.

Greenpeace regularly uses Facebook to engage its supporters and their friends to hold other corporations accountable for their environmental impact. Facebook’s innovative and easy-to-use platform has enabled it to become an incredibly important tool for connecting people to engage in driving social change. Facebook is uniquely positioned to be a truly visible and influential leader to drive the deployment of clean energy.

Greenpeace has spent the last six years focusing a significant portion of our corporate engagement within the IT industry. We have worked with a number of companies including Hewlett Packard, Toshiba, and Google on corporate and government policy issues. We have seen big progress ranging from curbing electronic waste to eliminating toxic chemicals from IT equipment. More recently we have been tackling energy and climate change issues. We see the potential for the sector to use the hallmark values of innovation and competitiveness that are pervasive in the IT world to become leaders in the fight against many of our greatest environmental challenges, including global warming.

Given that your corporate and public policies on the environment have not been articulated, we would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and your team to hear what work Facebook has planned and to discuss the steps we feel would put Facebook in a leadership position on climate change within the IT sector. Key areas of leadership for Facebook should include:

Commit to a plan to phase out the use of dirty coal-fired electricity to power your data centers;

Use your purchasing power to choose locations that allow you to rely on only clean, renewable sources of electricity;

Advocate for strong climate and energy policy changes at the local, national and international level to ensure that as the IT industry's energy demand increases, so does the supply of renewable energy;

Share this plan for environmental stewardship publicly on your website so your hundred of millions of users know that your company is a climate leader.

It is with the interest of your company, your millions of users, and our planet in mind that I urge you to exercise bold and immediate leadership in addressing climate change. I invite you to engage with me in dialogue regarding these points, as I am sure that with further discussion regarding your company’s environmental goals and growth plans, we will be able to reach common ground. I look forward to your response.

We appreciate your efforts on behalf of the planet and we agree that environmental responsibility is important and we are commi...

Hi Jodie,

We appreciate your efforts on behalf of the planet and we agree that environmental responsibility is important and we are committed to it as a company. In addition, we are proud that our service is used by more than 500 million people around the world to connect and interact in place of many more carbon-intensive activities such as air travel and postal mail.

Overall, we're thrilled at our choice in Oregon and we're challenging the industry to meet the standards we’re setting in energy efficiency there. As we continue to grow, we’ll seek and evaluate more ways to minimize and offset our environmental impact (on the planet). Our move from many smaller leased data centers to fewer larger customized data centers that we own is a great example. That is, the small data centers where we rent space are designed to accommodate many different companies, computers and services. By definition, these facilities can’t be customized for us and, because we must rent from multiple providers, we can’t customize our infrastructure for them. The sum of all the pieces that are designed to do more than is needed is a system that is not as efficient as it could be. It’s like driving a Hummer which is able to navigate any terrain when all you really need is a Prius to get you around. On the other hand, the data center we are building will be just for Facebook—the computers, racks, cooling, building and other parts of the facility are all specially designed to work together in the most efficient and minimal way possible.

In addition, in selecting Oregon, we chose a region that offers a uniquely dry and temperate climate. This climate enable us to go beyond just customization in design, but also to think innovatively about what else we can do to use less energy. For example, almost all data centers use mechanical chillers or large air conditioners for part, if not all, of the year to cool the computers within the facility. These mechanical chillers use a lot of energy and are only exceeded in their energy use by the thousands of computers inside the data center. Because of the climate around Prineville and our unique design, we won’t use any mechanical chillers. None. We won’t even build any. Instead, the data center will use an innovative evaporative cooling system.

Imagine two identical houses with all of the same power consumption inside (appliances, electronics, etc.) only one is cooled by a large air conditioner and the other is cooled by ceiling fans. Obviously, the house with the fans will use significantly less energy. That’s why you may get rebates from your power company when you install a ceiling fan and why our data center will use less energy to deliver our service to people.

All of these investments in efficiency design, planning and technology will result in one of, if not the most, energy efficient data centers in the world. Data center energy efficiency is measured by Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE). The industry average for PUE ranges from 1.6 to over 2. Our Prineville data center will have a PUE of 1.15.

At the same time, it is simply untrue to say that we chose coal as a source of power. The suggestions of “choosing coal” ignores the fact that there is no such thing as a coal-powered data center. Similarly, there is no such thing as a hydroelectric-powered data center. Every data center plugs into the grid offered by their utility or power provider. The electrons powering that data center are produced by the various sources (e.g. hydro, natural gas, coal, geothermal, wind, etc.) the provider uses in proportions similar to the mix of sources used. That is, if 25 percent of the provider’s energy comes from natural gas, it’s a good guess that 25 percent of the electrons powering the facility come from that source. Even when a facility is in close proximity to an individual source of energy, such a dam or coal plant, there is no guarantee that the electricity produced by that source are flowing to the facility at any particular time.

It’s true that the local utility for the region we chose, Pacific Power, has an energy mix that is weighted slightly more toward coal than the national average (58% vs. about 50%). However, the efficiency we are able to achieve because of the climate of the region minimizes our overall carbon footprint. Said differently, if we located the data center most other places, we would need mechanical chillers, use more energy, and be responsible for an overall larger environmental impact—even if that location was fueled by more renewable energy.

In addition, we plan to have our data center in Prineville for a long time so when considering the sources of energy, we took a long term view. The state of Oregon has an aggressive plan for increasing their renewable energy mix. In fact, Pacific Power plans to increase their renewable energy mix in the coming years. Their most recent plan calls for having more than 2,000 megawatts of renewable resources by 2013. Thus, our data center is only going to get greener over time as these resources come on line and contribute to even greater proportions of the facility’s energy.

Finally, Greenpeace’s own infrastructure illustrates many of the challenges we face. As recently as March of this year, they indicated that they had a number of servers in a rented data center in northern Virginia (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/03/03/greenpeaces-hosting-not-truly-green/). Their representative commented that these servers are “using whatever the grid mix is in Virginia.” The reporter on the story estimates that mix to be 46% from coal, 41% from nuclear, 8% from natural gas, and just 4% of its power from renewable generation. While this mix includes a little less coal than Pacific Power, there is 5 times as much renewable energy available in Central Oregon (i.e. Pacific Power includes more than 20% renewable sources). I honestly can’t say whether the energy mix in Northern Virginia or Central Oregon emits more carbon per watt. That’s not the point.

We also recognize that Greenpeace’s technology infrastructure is probably small compared to ours. The point is, if an organization focused on environmental responsibility like Greenpeace can’t do better than the mix above for just a few servers, what options are available to Facebook? Unfortunately, there just isn’t a perfect solution yet. Therefore, we strongly believe that the best way to minimize our impact is to concentrate on efficiency and building servers that work towards that goal. We have invested heavily in efficiency are very proud of our achievements. We would welcome the opportunity to partner with Greenpeace to challenge others to meet our efficiency standards and, in parallel, help the world move to more renewable energy sources.

We appreciate your recognition that Facebook has a coal problem with its Oregon datacenter. However, where we disagree is your claim to be powerless to do anything about it as, like Greenpeace and others, Facebook simply have to buy whatever electricity is available. This is not the case for Greenpeace, and is certainly not the case for Facebook, who is an industrial scale consumer of electricity.

As evidenced by the 500,000 users who have asked Facebook to get off of coal, we expect and demand more leadership from such an innovative company that is a playing an important role in bringing the world together.

Facebook is buying electricity in bulk to meet the needs of 500 million+ users, and is becoming a very influential company both inside and outside the IT sector. The expected power consumption of the Oregon data center alone gives Facebook the purchasing power of 30,000-40,000 homes, which gives you the ability and standing to shape how power is generated in Oregon and far beyond.

As we have seen with other environmental challenges, motivated companies with big purchasing power can make a powerful difference in driving environmental solutions and policy change. Greenpeace’s recent campaign targeting Nestlé (using Facebook no less) over their purchase of palm oil that is destroying the rainforest in Indonesia led the company to change its procurement policy, and has now led Burger King to announce yesterday that they will no longer buy palm oil from this supplier. This is sending a powerful signal both to the marketplace and to the policy makers in Indonesia and well beyond.

Facebook must take responsibility for the significant impact its investment decisions on the location of its own datacenters and the source of electricity that is supplying both its own and those facilities it is renting can have. Efficiency is certainly important, but is only the beginning of taking responsibility for your rapidly growing energy and environmental footprint.

Google, Yahoo and others in the IT sector already understand that while efficiency is important, it is not the whole story. Given the rapid growth in the IT sector, they recognize the source of electricity is also an increasingly important consideration, that they have a responsibility and an important role to play, and are significantly increasing the amount of renewable electricity they are purchasing.

Ultimately, we need Facebook to work with Greenpeace and others in Oregon and elsewhere to push for the policy changes that will rapidly move us off of coal and toward renewable sources of energy.

The world’s top climate scientists tell us that we have as little as 5 years to stabilize global warming pollution globally, which means that we must move off of coal as rapidly as possible. As was highlighted in Greenpeace’s Make IT Green Report, at current growth rates, data centers and telecommunication networks that make up the cloud will consume more than the current electricity consumption of France, Germany, Canada and Brazil combined by 2020. Given this projected growth of energy use, it is essential that Facebook and others in the IT sector show leadership in driving a transformation in our production and use of electricity.

As was recently shown in Portugal, whose electricity grid recently underwent a transformation from 15% to 45% renewable sources in the span of five years, a rapid increase in clean energy is not only possible, it is good for the local economy. The IT sector itself has identified it has an important role in this transformation, estimating its ability to reduce energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions globally 15% by 2020, and Greenpeace is challenging the sector to use their innovation and influence to overcome the opposition of powerful utilities like Pacific Corp and the fossil fuel industry who are slowing this transition down, if not blocking it outright. We need Facebook to stand with us and others to make this transition happen, and happen soon.

We look forward to working with Facebook to help it and the rest of the world off of coal and to more renewables sources of energy as rapidly as possible.

Good point in showing how complex the problem is facing both Facebook and Greenpeace but I think you do a deservice in not quotin...

Barry,

Good point in showing how complex the problem is facing both Facebook and Greenpeace but I think you do a deservice in not quoting the complete response by Gary Cook with reference to Greenpeace's IT infrastructure and specifically the Northern Virginia co-location servers:

"But Greenpeace also has a number of servers in a colocation center in northern Virginia. “They’re using whatever the grid mix is in Virginia,” said Cook, who added that the colo deal was arranged about five years ago. “At that point in time, there weren’t providers that met our requirements (for renewable energy). We’re in the process of reworking some of our IT infrastructure, and we’ll clean that up.”"

Greenpeace is aware of the problem and is actively working to resolve it.

It is clear the push for greener data centers has to come from those with big requirements and big influence which is why it only approriate that Facebook take the lead in this endeavor. Not only will it help the environment but it will actually increase the positive image of Facebook in the eyes of consumers, an image that has taken some hits recently.

However, I think you're missing the point. What you've said is essentially agree that Renewables are good and coal is bad, but you end up throwing your hands in the air saying, what can we do about it? This is the energy mix we get.

That seems to say "underachiever". Considering how big FB is and how powerful you are. You guys have the power to be thought leaders. Imagine the positive messaging you send by adopting green power.

FB is the 4th largest country was the last stat I read. That could easily be the LARGEST country run entirely on renewables.

I do think FB can take the lead. I'm sure it's gonna cost a bit more, but think about your kids' future (I'm presuming you have kids).

The use of evaporative cooling is in and of itself disturbing. The avoidance of use of water for data center cooling is the next realm of responsible data center design. This increasingly scarce and precious resource should not be the defacto design premise. This is false economics and an uncounted cost not made apparent in a electricity only PUE number. Evaporating unlimited quantities of water from aquifer, river or lake, or even where reprocessed from waste is simply not responsible now and certainly will not be in the long term.

Have you Greenpeace people ever wondered why you only have 500,000 people against this out of the 500 million people on FB? It is because no on...

Have you Greenpeace people ever wondered why you only have 500,000 people against this out of the 500 million people on FB? It is because no one really cares. You people need to leave FB alone. COAL is good. It creates jobs and outproduces renewable energy by at least 100 to 1. Oh, and it is cheap. There is no such thing as Global Warming. Get off of it already. All this renewable energy crap is doing is driving the price up so that the normal person can't afford electricity for their home. I live in Prineville and FB is good for this community and yes, I have already seen the price increase several times due to Pacific Power's changeover to renewable energy.
Gary, I never did see an answer to the statement from Barry of your infrastructure in Virginia running on 46% coal. If this is true, how about cleaning up your own backyard before you tell the neighbor what he should do with his.